A Less-Awful Marmon-Herrington Tank.

[@ulissedazante5748]

Aberdeen proving ground: testing every lemon with a straight face.

[@F14thunderhawk]

i would love to see Aberdeen turn this series into a KZbin series where they actually test real lemons. And then every test ends with the Abrams test: How fun is it to crush with an M1A2SEP

[@gittyupalice96]

@Samson Themighty got to be the best job, driving and shooting tanks that the government will probably end up just shooting holes in the side of and scrapping. No pressure to not break it, when the job is TO break it lol.

[@mtssman]

@Samson Themighty ......you send it to Aberdeen proving ground 😆😆😆

[@EmpPeng2k7]

Aberdeen proving ground: Fixing the unfixable, because damn it we are going to do the tests we need to do

[@looinrims]

Well yeah they test dogshit so much they probably aren’t phased

[@catfish552]

Army officer: "And you guys really operate this thing? Like, seriously, for real?" Marine officer:

[@steeljawX]

'Operate' and 'operate on' is just 2 letters and a space space from a world of difference and the entire story. One requires a medical degree, the latter requires a Marmon-Herrington advertisement.

[@robertl6196]

Reading between the lines, you can practically hear all of the swearing.

[@SteamCrane]

I think that at that time, they had the continual expectation of impending mechanical failure that you still see with Britons, southern Europeans, and Russians.

[@jimwegerer5988]

Army tester: The brakes overheated again, how do you fix it? Marine driver: We just kick them a few times. Army tester: And that fixes them? Marine driver: No but it makes us feel better!

[@colbeausabre8842]

My grandfather was a railroad machinist, his answer to any problem was to hit the offending part with his pipe wrench. If that didn't work, He say "Get a big hammer"

[@loficampingguy9664]

"This was the second differential to fail in this particular tank in the period of about three weeks." I see Marmon-Herrington was taking their differential design inspiration from the Panther.

[@Bird_Dog00]

More like taking the differential from a 3 ton truck and putting it on a nearly 6 ton tank... But yea, I can see where you get the idea.

[@filmandfirearms]

The Panther had more issues with its HL230 engine than its final drive. The final drive issues were mostly due to a lack of spare parts thanks to Germany having very little infrastructure left

[@GeneralJackRipper]

It's reports like these that give real context to the idea of automotive reliability.

[@KaladinVegapunk]

@Samson Themighty haha what? I mean 70 years ago sure..but you do realize our cars have been janky plastic crap for decades? Compared to BMW or british cars, and especially japanese trucks, ford is a joke The famous Top Gear test of that toyota hilux surviving fire, ocean, a building demolishing, and driving away..? An F150 would have been totalled instantly

[@KarltheKrazyone]

Its interesting how we decide on what our standards are these days. It wasn't that long ago that many companies who owned vehicles did a lot of in-house work on them. Even to the point of working crews being sent out to field sites taking a mechanic with them just as a matter of course for the vehicles, never mind the heavy equipment they might be traveling with. Sure, a lot of stuff has gone to "black box" but my current vehicle is my highest mileage and currently best running that I've ever owned (though given my vehicle history that isn't saying much)

[@TestTestGo]

Technology gets better over time. Right now we expect our computers to crash every now and then and think nothing of it. Give it 50 years and they'll be running reliably for years without an issue.

[@cheyannei5983]

@@KaladinVegapunk BMW? Didn't they make a car with a special opening procedure for the hood, because if you didn't have two people to open it, the supports would snap? Oh, right, and this was knowledge considered to be technicians-only by BMW.

[@jic1]

@@KaladinVegapunk "British cars"? Seriously?

[@llllib]

Well I guess these vehicles played an important role, in that after they were replaced with Stuarts/Shermans, marines must have felt like they can fly and destroy worlds.

[@francesconicoletti2547]

“Mechanically unreliable “. The author of that report has been listening to too many British Officials. That is a vast understatement. Prone to routine failure, perhaps.

[@Nipplator99999999999]

That's what always got me into trouble doing phase inspections and Airframe modifications, I wrote down exactly what I was thinking, and the Army brass-holes wanted their perfumed speeches and empty thoughts to magically improve the airframes. Some of them were older than myself and still waiting for the enhancement depot slot for update.

[@stuartross282]

Love the driver been referred to a chauffeur

[@wraithcadmus]

"Driving Miss Degtyaryov"

[@FullSemiAuto357]

I found it interesting and informative.

[@willythemailboy2]

I found it informative and interesting. Perhaps I should have read the manual first.

[@abelq8008]

Nice Josie Whales profile 🤠

[@DanTDirect]

@@willythemailboy2 I

[@fien111]

"The Marines were familiar with and prepared for the multiple, horrible mechanical failures and had spare parts ready to repair them" Sounds like Marines, alright. We got busted, hand-me-down shit that even the Army wouldn't take? Yeah, yeah. Figure out where it breaks, how to fix it, and what office of the Navy to bill it to.

[@ThroneOfBhaal]

I'm sorry, there is just no room in the budget. *Strokes the air forces order of like... 1,763 F-35As* Just no room at all...xD

[@Tomyironmane]

@@ThroneOfBhaal You forgot the B-21

[@ThroneOfBhaal]

@@Tomyironmane Oh delightful, 700 million USD each. We'll take 150. But there is still no room in the budget... ;)

[@Bird_Dog00]

Loved that one. A reminder that "less awfull" can still be awfull. I realy dig the way those guys at Aberdeen had with words.

[@dcbanacek2]

Considering all the "Free _Insert Nation's Name Here_ Forces" there were who lost the mother countries manufacturing capability when the various Axis forces rolled over them, I'd have to say they were very desperate indeed.

[@BHuang92]

Any tracked vehicle with a gun is good enough............

[@theultimatederp3288]

@@BHuang92 New Zealand: *Bob Semple tank intensifies*

[@Scary1ibera1]

@@BHuang92 Soviets: put a 122mm howziter on a tractor chassis, slap some bulletproof plates on it, and behold, the SU-2S.. The SU-2 is even more weird looking, still a tractor but it has a fully rotating 76mm gun on top.

[@Scary1ibera1]

The gun was so powerful it rocked the entire vehicle backward when it fired, the 76mm one.. so they had to put a bunch of stops behind it to not fall off.

[@cirian75]

chauffeur? lol I was only ever called Driver/idiot/moron when I drove Challenger 1 in the mid 90s

[@ringowunderlich2241]

With the loss of the empire came the loss of the manners and politeness of true gentlemen.

[@TestTestGo]

Alternatively, people who are not members of the aristocracy are now permitted to reach positions of importance. It's all about perspective.

[@chuckygobyebye]

Oh, I bet you were called worse than that on occasion.

[@cirian75]

@@chuckygobyebye A lot lot lot worse, you need to keep it kid friendly on KZbin

[@allangibson2408]

Drivers at this time were in charge of mule teams... where do you think the Teamsters got there name from.

[@Graham-ce2yk]

Thank you for covering these obscure vehicles, since the T-16 did make it into combat in the Aleutians the official reports will make for some interesting reading.

[@thomaslinton5765]

With the Marmon Motor Car Company's fortunes waning during the Great Depression, Walter Marmon found an ally in Arthur Herrington, who had served as a chief engineer in the Motor Transport Section of the U.S. Army

[@hendrikgreiner8449]

If you ever want a new job, Nicolas, i suggest advertisment. That read of the sales brosure was quite convincing, judging from your tone!

[@andrewcox4386]

I note the MTLS also had a failure of the oil line by the filter - seems like a common weakness of MH engine bays

[@USAAmutual45]

17:55 proving that the turret monster can exist even without a turret.

[@MarkVrem]

Makes me wonder what defense contractors today produce items that make them a great deal of money during peace-times, but would be exposed during a major war. Going promptly out of business during the time the most money is out there to be made. Like these Tankette producers cashing those 1930s defense budget checks. Making governments worldwide feel safe and comfy with the 1000s of tanks they just ordered and still being under-budget.

[@jon-paulfilkins7820]

As the British found, the Tankette can be developed into a useful utility vehicle (The Carrier family), but as is, building up the technical and logistical know how to run tanks it probably its biggest use. Remember, in the 30's, the USA had an unusually high level of motorisation compared to the rest of the world. Some countries had to build all those attendant skills (Motor mechanics, making service parts) from near enough scratch.

[@washingtonradio]

@@jon-paulfilkins7820 In WWII there were only 2 armies that could be called fully motorized - US Army and Royal Army. All other countries lacked automotive/truck manufacturing to even come close.

[@Grimmtoof]

@@washingtonradio I think you mean the British Army not the royal army. Only the navy and the air force are royal in the UK.

[@jon-paulfilkins7820]

@@washingtonradio Royal? You mean the British Army? It is never royal as its founding units was technically on the other side in the king vs parliament spat a few years back. Even though they did bring the monarchy back when the rump parliament failed. Units can be royal, the most senior being formed in exile! But the army as a whole, cannot have the title 'Royal'.

[@ineednochannelyoutube5384]

Tankettes are useful, both to establish manoiver doctrine, train units in operating machinery, and combined arms warfare, and they can be rather effective in a reconnaisance or infantry support role. They also make for perfect artillery tractors, apc conversions, engineering vehicles, and potentially even airborne armour. However investing in them to the tone of thousands of units is probably less effective than standing up one or two divisions of real armour.

[@BobSmith-dk8nw]

Yes. Interesting and informative. I marvel once again at the dedication of the engineers and Marines who worked with this piece of crap. .

[@danhurley148]

Too bad Tom and Ray of CAR TALK aren't still around, Ut would be a great cross-over episode

[@tokul76]

It was just a tankette and a prototype from 1936. Designed to marine spec limits, probably by cheapest contractor. Flaw list on first five M1 combat cars might be similar.

[@dcpower777]

Use to be made right down the street from my house here in Indianapolis

[@donaldparlettjr3295]

I love the sarcastic reading of the advertisement for the tank/tankette.

[@Lintary]

These Marmon-Herrington tanks sound like Lotus cars. People know all the flaws and still buy them :D

[@luisnunes2010]

Who else would gladly take a italian tank against one of these? P.s. Props to the Aberdeen staff for half rebuilding that thing.

[@Stardude78]

It's a mystery why the weren't just license building/cloning Carden Loyd tankettes like literally everyone else.

[@TheAngelobarker]

except italian tanks were very reliable. They were even a fair tank for 1940...they just got used for far too long due to industrial problems. The axis tanks had to come all the way across libya and part of egypt to get to el alamein. compare the British tanks where they would lose so many to malfunction it would halt their advance.

[@luisnunes2010]

@@TheAngelobarker And had real tank guns. I said I would feel fine fighting these in an italian tank. Or a japanese one.

[@luisnunes2010]

@@Stardude78 Not invented here? 😉

[@TheAngelobarker]

@@luisnunes2010 the way you said it was implying italian tanks were terrible

[@davehood2667]

Not likely a matter of desperation, Marmon-Herrington was no doubt some Congressman's pork kickback buddy.

[@Stardude78]

The Dutch bought from them. That was clearly an act of desperation.

[@DavidGarcia-fe7lv]

Aberdeen documents are the best thing to come to us

[@petesheppard1709]

That must have been a very uncomfortable few days for those Marines, having to explain their vehicles..

[@BrotherWalrus]

To also quote from Ken Este's Marines Under Armor, p22-23: "Tests with only .22-caliber ammunition had produced bullet splash through the vision ports and engine louvres... The staff evaluated the bullet-splash problem of the CTL-3 as proof that it was vulnerable to .30-caliber and larger weapons." Imagine fielding a tank that isn't even bulletproof. Also imagine being told about this weakness, and then deciding to procure the tank anyway! Who could possibly be so out of touch with reality to do this? The Marine Corps! Top brass heard this and decided to go ahead with the CTL-3 anyway, against their subordinates' wishes to adopt the M2 Light (or literally anything better and with a turret) instead. It only took the fall of France for them to realize that MAYBE a tankette with a .50-cal wasn't good enough to storm a beach in 1940!

[@naamadossantossilva4736]

Probably the MH was cheaper.bean counters are an ancient plague.

[@PSPaaskynen]

They needed armour to train with and at the time did not have landing craft that could take heavier vehicles.

[@BrotherWalrus]

@@PSPaaskynen I won't deny the point about training, but the Corps made the decision to keep the CTL-3 in April, and quickly sidelined the weight requirement in July when they figured that they'd probably be fighting Panzers if they ever had to make a beach landing on Vichy French islands. In the end, the strict weight restriction ended up being unnecessary - they found out in November that the M2A4 worked just fine with existing LCM's anyway!

[@blueboats7530]

No one has commented yet the Chieftan's shirt colors are Marine Corps red and gold

[@bradyelich2745]

Royal Canadian Dragoons.

[@crudboy12]

So the only part of this machine that actually worked as designed for any amount of time was the bit made by ford.

[@thomaslinton5765]

HH6-COE4 Semi-double-axle all-wheel drive truck supplied to the USSR under the Lend-Lease, where it was used as a chassis for the "Katyush" rocket.

[@eze417]

When I was a kid in the 70's there was a Saturday morning TV show called Ark II, and they had an episode called "The Tank." KZbin has the episode if y'all want to get a peek at it. The comments say it's a USMC Marmon-Herrington that served in the Aleutians during the war. A faux cannon has been placed where the .30 Browning in the front used to be. Looks like it might have been a fun ride and perhaps a useful tank in those areas where the enemy had no tanks capable of defeating it.

[@TheChieftainsHatch]

If I had to put money on it, it looks more like a Marmon Herrington tractor that someone put a replica of an M1 body on top of. I don't think it's actually an armored body, and the external bogie reinforcing struts I've seen on some of the tractors.

[@eze417]

@@TheChieftainsHatch Thanks. The Chieftain's knowledge on these matters is highly valued. At first I thought it was an M3 Stuart modified as a command vehicle, but it looked too small, and the bogies were different. Some on there were saying the body is actually fiberglass.

[@SteamCrane]

I am suddenly reminded of Fred Crismon, a master of sarcasm that had actually dealt with US military vehicle lunacy.

[@keithdoms4224]

These tanks were around long enough for at least one toy maker to make a rubber toy of one complete with a crewman's head sticking out. I always thouhgt it looked so weird because the toy company was tring to imagine what a tank should look like.

[@SportbikerNZ]

Marmon-Herrington - using nothing but the best Christmas cracker design philosophy.

[@jic1]

Lest anybody get the impression from this and the previous video that Marmon-Herrington were a bunch of incompetent clowns who made garbage, I think it's worth noting that they are still in business. They make axles, transfer cases, and transmissions for trucks and heavy vehicles.

[@pinestumps8622]

I would love a piece on Harry Knox and his work with ordnance at rock island back in the 20s & 30s

[@r.g.o3879]

I served from 81 to 89 in self propelled artillery units. We had M109 A1s and M577A1s, and M548s. We commonly performed what we called a pivot steer, did many myself with the 577. You just locked the one track and spun around in whichever direction you wished. Saw two M60s lost on the Autobahn pivot steer which blocked off a couple lanes of traffic with the resultant nasty accident. They used to tell us not to talk about this but as it was 40 years ago I guess that's long enough lol

[@alanrogers7090]

Sorry, Nick, the Estes bok is actually named, "Marines Under Armor", by Kenneth W. Estes, and came out in 2000. I have this book, and many others about armor, as my dad was a driver of the M5A1 Stuart during WWII. He was in the 7th Armored Division, 473rd Reconnaissance, Troop F in Europe.

[@TheChieftainsHatch]

Wait, what did I say? You may be interested in my interview with Ken here. kzbin.info/www/bejne/lXWlnoGrrtuZidk

[@Jccarlton1400]

AS training tools these things functioned perfectly. In combat, I hope that none of them reached combat.

[@jangustl_wt2358]

For the poor mechanics these things are great training tools, to learn every type of failure of a bad design.

[@zachsmith1676]

@@jangustl_wt2358 if tankers had to train on these I bet they'd be great at doing "Third Echelon Maintenance" (Field Repairs as far as I can tell) and would be very happy indeed once they get through training and are given an actual tank rather than a cobbled-together "Tank"

[@Cancun771]

Training tools for mechanics...

[@PSPaaskynen]

I believe the USMC Marmon-Herringtons were kept at the Samoa base and never saw action. There is footage of a Marmon Herrington CTL-6 (?) being launched from a landing craft, which was used to illustrate Operation Torch in the influential British documentary TV series The World at War, but this may have been a mistake.

[@jon-paulfilkins7820]

As I start this video, i'm thinking, low bar!

[@HanSolo__]

Sir, is it common among tank crews to make models while sitting in the camp? Do the command find it useful they don't care, or don't even know? Curator sir David Willey said in one of his new videos: "making models helps tankers remembering the enemy and friendly vehicles." As I understand, he meant distinguishing between minor details of, let's say, a deeply modernized model, which can look very similar to the old piece. Doing 1st Apr video from the military base could work well in terms of PR of the armored forces and attraction for the young ones deciding their future career ;) Back to our tank on the chat: these 8x8 are considered this exact way. Type 16 being a "Wheeled Tank" is indeed an interesting idea. Both B1 and Type 16 are nicely low in silhouette. Like the look of both. Opposite to all other big-gun 8x8 of the world. B2, Stryker, or some trail models - meh.

[@lwilton]

That tank picture at 22:54 showed some very unusual armament. It looked like a very large headlight and a pair of bugle truck air horns. Or maybe a pair of trombones.

[@danhurley148]

It belonged to Patton....He loved to sound his own horn. I mean, seriously, he has a SIREN on his tank when commanding the 2nd AD....

[@trekaddict]

I'D be interested in what has to be a counterpoint in most respects. The test report of a very unknown, obscure tank, the M4 Medium.

[@bwilliams463]

It sounds like several of the component failures may only be attributed to Marmon-Herrington because of installation of low-quality parts from other suppliers, most likely in order to save money.

[@Bird_Dog00]

That may have been an issue. Though as I understand it, the very severe weight restrictions imposed by the military also played a role as it would have prevented the use of heavier - and thus tougher - parts.

[@larrysmith6797]

The front drive wheels look pretty good. I'll bet you could adopt the design to off road bead lock style wheels for pick up trucks and sell a lot of them.

[@GeneralJackRipper]

Is it just me, or do weapon advertisements sound darn sexy?

[@davidgreen5099]

It sounds great!!! I'll take two, one in green, one in tan.

[@666Blaine]

But why did they all pull to the right? The bent triangle-plates wouldn't explain why they all did it. The fact that they confirmed that the rolling resistance on both sides was even AND replaced the differential makes this a bit of a mystery. Maybe the differential was off center and it was torque-steering? (Sorry, I build transmissions for a living so this probably bothers me more than it should.)

[@billbolton]

Sounds like my first car.

[@xt6wagon]

It doesn't sound too bad till you get to the lack of "here is version 1.1, now with more cooling for all the things". Combo of issues of being one of the first tanks a company makes plus the usual stupidity with interwar tank procurement going on here. Few nations seemed to want to spend any money on tanks, even the UK seems to be more about selling overseas to make money than actual tank development.

[@christophersmith1153]

Royal Canadian Dragoons - LAVborne

[@jameslewis2635]

Suprisingly for a company that produced such deficient vehicles, it seems that Marmon-Herrington is still a going concern.

[@williamjackson5942]

These things were designed for sale to South American and similar militaries, their purpose was to overawe civilians during the semiannual revolution! Never intended for actual warfare you know....

[@carlcarlton764]

Hi Nick and Ken, could you post a link to the video where you discussed Marine tanks? I must have missed this.

[@TheChieftainsHatch]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/lXWlnoGrrtuZidk

[@66kbm]

How the hell was this ever even thought about being used, let alone examples being made and shipped to the Military.

[@le_travie7724]

Is what I said

[@watchm4ker]

Weight requirements. This was a Marine Corps vehicle, so it needs to be loaded and unloaded from a warship, and landed on a beach or dock, so they needed a tank under 6 tons. That is not a lot of steel. This tonk weighed in at 5.5 tons.

[@ineednochannelyoutube5384]

@@watchm4ker Both Italy Japan and Poland seemed to manage such vehicles some even under 4 tons, with similar armour, better armament and much better reliability. One would expect Ford to be able to make a better tank than Ansaldo.

[@martijn9568]

@@ineednochannelyoutube5384 ''Ansaldo'', don't they make trains nowadays, because their trains are shit when not driving in clear weather. A few years back the Nederlandse Spoorwegen (Dutch Railways) bought a couple of their high speed trains, only to retire them a year or two later, because they were constantly having issues.

[@ineednochannelyoutube5384]

@@martijn9568 I have no idea what they do now, besides the fact that tje, were at one point acquired by FIAT. However they designed among others the Carro Veloce L33 tankette, the dinky 3.3 ton italian tankette, that whilst not tremsndously effective as a tank, was at least better than this thing.

[@SteamCrane]

If you could get a look at the classified internal evaluations of USS Gerald R. Ford, Zumwalt, LCS, or F35, they would probably read in a similar way. USAF is seriously looking at building brand new F-15's and maybe F-16's due to the F-35 fiasco. The military will never learn.

[@joeblow9657]

LOL sounds about right. Wasn't the f-35 supposed to be starting to be a major component of US military aviation by now?

[@farmerboy916]

I so want these to work. I have a soft spot for tankettes and the like that could be parked in a garage

[@JakeTheTankmaster]

Q: I once saw a video of an Abrams starting up from the inside. The driver's instruments had the speedometer in Miles per hour, but the actual Mileage was in Kilometres. Why's that?

[@davidbrennan660]

It’s an Army thing.

[@reginaldbentworth9159]

i would assume its something to do with knowing how much fuel you have burnt? the military usually uses kilometres for distance unless im wrong, so if you know your objective is 15 clicks away and you only have 10 clicks of fuel you have to refuel where as if it was in miles there may be mistakes when doing the math, just a possibility

[@davidhorn5771]

Foreign subcontractors...

[@dmanbiker]

It's probably just for familiarity because the American tank drivers would be acclimated to driving in MPH, while the US military still uses metric distance measurements.

[@almondsnackbar4969]

Map and road distance in METERS for map reading. Convoy and speed limits are in MPH for ease of common conformity.

[@steeljawX]

. . . . Did Marmon-Herrington go on to become video game developers? This sounds awfully familiar. "NEW BUILT ENGINE, THAT BRINGS YOU SMOOTHER FRAMES AND A MORE IMMERSIVE EXPERIENCE THAN BEFORE!!!" "A WIDER MULTIPLAYER SERVER BASE TO CONNECT YOU AND YOUR FRIENDS FASTER AND WITH SOLID UNINTERRUPTED GAMEPLAY!" "A CATERED LIVE SERVICE MARKET AND AWESOME SEASON PASSES THAT GIVES YOU THE LATEST DLC TO UP YOUR GAME!!" "Not just 1 gun, not just 2, but you can have 3 guns on this thing!" "It has revolutionary Marmon-Herrington (could swap that out for Epic, Ubisoft, EA, or any other major game dev) steering and handling systems that give you a reliable machine!" "Just dropped a quick fix patch. Now you can actually boot up the game! We have plans to actually complete the thing. . . . sometime. . . . maybe."

[@VoltageLP]

I didn't know mormons had tanks!

[@Nipplator99999999999]

When has a Ford V-8 been an upgrade...after the mid 1920's?

[@AveragePootis]

Atleast that thing looks quite good

[@martijn9568]

Hey Chieftain. What was the point behind light tanks for the US Army during WW2? After watching your prefious videos on the Sherman it seems like it was mobile enough to the point that the Army wouldn't need light tanks. What am I missing? Thanks for responding, a guy who got interested in tanks due to your channel after only liking planes.

[@paulgdunsford7469]

G’day mate couple of mates are talking about a trip up north to the the Cairns tank museum and throughs ?

[@Cancun771]

Oooh that's where the penis tank lives!1

[@timothyboles6457]

The Ford V8's AKA the Flathead were notorious for overheating because of weak water pumps. The overheating was worse for the Lincoln V12 Flathead for the same reason and larger engine

[@Bird_Dog00]

Why not solve the problem by bolting a better water pump on? No realy, what as the reason for not doing this, if the problem had been identified?

[@timothyboles6457]

@@Bird_Dog00 the better water pumps were not around when the original flathead were in production. Almost every Flathead block has at least 1 crack in it from overheating issues. As I said, the V8s weren't as bad as the V12s. Modern Hot rodders have access to decent water pumps. But those were only developed in the last 15 years or so. Not in the 1930s and 1940s

[@Bird_Dog00]

@@timothyboles6457 Hmm.. But other companies made V8s and V12s in the same time (V8s were around since at least the 1910s) and I haven't heard of them all having the same issues.

[@timothyboles6457]

@@Bird_Dog00 you're right. But Ford V8s were a different and new casting process. And the other V8s that you speak of were high end cars and low production. But Ford V8s had a habit of boiling over just in cars, much less an armored vehicle

[@Bird_Dog00]

@@timothyboles6457 Engineering is facinating. Being a mechanic myself I love disecting issues and exploring why certain fingerquotes "obvious" sollutions weren't implemented. Did Ford have a particular problem with its engine design? And, what was that new and special casting process? If an engine tends to overheat where other engines don't I would first assume a desing flaw, not material properties (and when you mention a new casting process, I think material properties first).

[@Halinspark]

How much if the poor tank designs in the early 30's was people still working out what a tank was and how they were built, and how much was various governments not wanting to pay for R&D? And what was just engineers who were bad at their jobs?

[@Halinspark]

@Biden BlowsGoats Learning CNC machining, and I asked why we didnt have to factor in some things I learned in my manual class. Teacher laughed at me and said "Because it's not 1912 anymore."

[@DarkestVampire92]

After all that, i find myself wondering why they didn't just give this tank to the Corps of Engineers and told them to build a suitable tank, using the test reports as an example of likely faults and issues. If you correct all these faults in a new design, you probably have a supremely good tankette.

[@tonyvancampen-noaafederal2640]

Primarily because Corps of Engineers builds things like forts, damns, etc. Bureau of Ordinance was responsible for things like tanks, guns, and small arms. Generally better tested than things designed by US Navy Bureau of Ordinance see Mk 14 Torpedo and companion Mk 6 exploder. Gives a whole new meeting to military grade hardware.

[@Nipplator99999999999]

The military engineers that would be assigned to the improvement project wouldn't have seen a tank in person, much less know what it should be capable of.

[@hughgordon6435]

After the torpedo fiasco ordinance bureau still had a say?

[@tonyvancampen-noaafederal2640]

@@hughgordon6435 Yeah, where else would you go? They were still the experts on all things ordinance from 20mm Oerlikon to 16inch rifles on battleships.

[@julmdamaslefttoe3559]

Great video as always

[@deth3021]

I was interested in the experimental tracks...

[@neilthornton1263]

Cool an RCD golf shirt.

[@randyhavard6084]

It's almost like we are spoiled these days by the reliability of new vehicles and equipment.

[@chinocracy]

I still hope to see plastic models of Marmon-Herrington tanks released, lol

[@darthck5066]

Still sounds more mechanically sound than the Ferdinand/Elefant.

[@cirian75]

busy tonight, x2 videos in one day

[@Nipplator99999999999]

A question based on a statement from the linked video, is everything that is named a variation of valiant worth more in pieces than assembled? I had a Plymouth Valiant and I literally shot it, and bought a car named Citation just so I wasn't annoyed with it living up to its name... I wasn't disappointed either, it ran better with 2 cylinders hanging out of the block than it did running on all four.

[@randymagnum143]

So, about as reliable as a t34?

[@randymagnum143]

Flathead Ford runs exhaust passages through block from valves to outside of the block. The cooling system is then charged with dealing with all that heat. The Hercules was undoubtedly superior.

[@mattwoodard2535]

How often does Marmon-Herrington repeat their own name is their advertising? sm

[@mooneyes2k478]

"A less-awful Marmon Herrington"...is that like "a less-awful case of cholera"?

[@Bird_Dog00]

I have a feeling the marines who were condemned to use it saw it pretty much that way...

[@mooneyes2k478]

@@Bird_Dog00 Very likely. If not worse.

[@thomaslinton1001]

NOTE: I find a reference to the "T-16" being the MH CTLS-4 as sold to the Dutch., only to be rquisitioned by the U.S. JUNQUE! see also drawing of T-16 at commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:T16_light_tank.jpg

[@memonk11]

Yeah... but other than that what was wrong with it?

[@Reepicheep-1]

When a V12 gets "upgraded to the V8"... SMH

[@social3ngin33rin]

Lol quite a list of bad things

[@johnsturm9344]

It shows Aberdeen's tenacity that they didn't just decide to "accidentally" park the tank in a live-fire artillery range! I think after the first day it's what I'd have done.

[@Halinspark]

It probably helps that their job is pretty much just driving around a bit and saying "Hey, your tank prototype is bad." If they had to fix any of the design failings, I'm sure they would have blown it up.

[@johnsturm9344]

@@Halinspark Very true. Also their under orders so its not like they can say no. Perhaps creatively misunderstand the orders or inefficiently carry them out. But I don't think there's many times one can refuse a legal direct order.

[@justinmorris568]

As bad as this tank sounds I get the impression that with a lot of the weak points known that it would not have been terribly difficult to address even just a few of them and have a competent early war light tank. How then did things continue to get so much worse leading up to the monumentally awful MTLS?

[@PSPaaskynen]

They tried to scale up from a tankette to a medium tank using basically the same suspension with the same number of bogies. In addition, they were forced to use a really awful AAC 37mm gun, the only one available on the open market.

[@jerrysolomon7623]

I think Marmon-Harrington built Fire trucks

[@JohnRodriguesPhotographer]

Excellent video. Appropriate sardonic tone.

[@ahnonymuch4183]

that's it. take my money. i want one!

[@michaeltempsch5282]

You Elbonian, by any chance?

[@CMDRFandragon]

Americans and vehicle weights. As now, the M1 is among the heaviest MBTs in the world.

[@CMDRFandragon]

@Biden BlowsGoats How back in WW1-WW2 era, they were worried about low weights. I find it kinda funny how they stopped caring about weight somewhere along the way and just said: Give it all the things! Now they have like the heaviest tank in the world. I still lubs my country's fat chonker, but yeah, shes a chonker. Still not slow and immobile like alot of the haters think, but yeah.

[@SteamCrane]

@@CMDRFandragon They are getting worried about it, thinking about European bridges.

[@jayfelsberg1931]

Less awful....uh, OK...

[@TheJsmitty85]

Where the guys who designed this tank drunk or didn’t care?

[@jeremyfeldmann7969]

It not as bad it just not good yet

[@yumpinyiminy963]

Maybe just the worse tank manufacture?

[@gittyupalice96]

" operating only 100 miles per vehicle over 50 days, the CTL-3's experienced 107 failures requiring action by mechanics. " Why that sounds just like a typical corporate meeting at Ford!

[@hellothere8644]

Why is there a fucking helicopter on his desk? Good video, though.

[@davidbrennan660]

Maybe the Chieftain has gained his rotary wings

[@herosstratos]

ACRs used to use helicopters too.

[@joeavent5554]

@@herosstratos He used to be in an Armored Cav Rgt. I build armor, aircraft and ships. He has an interest in anything military, too.

[@zoperxplex]

Wrong! Worst tank was the A7V.

[@cynicalfox190]

??

[@ParabellumStoria]

@@cynicalfox190 ww1 german tank and no, the worst was the Saint-Chamond

[@Rez944]

@@ParabellumStoria laughs in valiant oh fuck clutch got the driver's foot again welp time to amputate

[@dcbanacek2]

The worst tank is the one you don't have with you.

[@jon-paulfilkins7820]

There is the excuse that they did not know what they were doing, same goes for all WW1 tanks that saw service. There is an additional excuse that A7V is the name of the committee that came up with it. Design by committee usually does not bode well.

[@matthewanderson9754]

🤣🤣 love it!